Alienware 17 R4 2017 review
Two neds nick a poppy collection box,seen and recorded on CCTV,not guilty plea accepted.
British justice.Don't you just love it?
oops sorry,wrong link.A tad early methinks,but you get my gist.
I imagine that the Crown Office was in possession of a better version of the facts than you have obtained from a newspaper article.
Despite the fact that the shop owner says he has CCTV footage of the theft of the collection box the Crown may have decided that the likelihood of a conviction on that evidence alone wasn't high enough to warrant the additional public expense of prosecuting a not guilty plea.
Each of the two men had already pleaded guilty to a similar theft of two other boxes, and I doubt that the outcome would have been much different, had the public purse been made to pay for a trial on the count of the third box. The Postmaster probably didn't help matters by plastering his shop with posters taken from the CCTV footage. Had the matter come to trial a defence lawyer might have made a song and dance about the public display of evidence prejudicing the outcome.
This isn't a case of the law being blind, it's a case of the law trying to save some of the taxpayers' money.
If you watch some of the appalling footage from the cheap CCTV systems used in shops you'll realise that the chances of conviction based on the footage alone are next to zero.
Mr Blobby could walk past the cameras and he wouldn't be recognised in the video.
Lesson to learn, if you want a CCTV system that will be accepted by the police & courts, don't buy the £20 cameras from Maplin...
"Given that, it appears, they were stealing to buy drugs they will, quite rightly, end up in a drug treatment programme".
Every day in every corner of society someone is robbing or mugging someone else to feed a drug habit. There is even a very recent government guideline about offering counselling to 'intoxicated persons' who commit crimes, instead of court appearances and sentencing.
Its about time we considered the victim's, and made the offenders pay for their deeds. For example, showing a celebrity snorting a nose full of some drug substance, then being 'let off' isn't going to achieve very much, except to perhaps increase the knowledge that 'punishment' will be rewarded with an easy option, at further public expense.
In this particular incident, it would not have made much difference to have had 'other offences' considered. But lets not forget, that these individuals had their human rights (something that was fought for!) violated by the publishing of the crime that was 'supposedly' committed.
Sharia law for people that do this.
I came across this link looking for something else click here
I believe the percentage of those entering rehab programmes and staying off drugs is very small.
Sorry, don't have a link.
There again, so is the percentage of those getting fined or jailed.
Why is it that the public have to feel sorry for drug addicts and people who consume large volumes of intoxicants, then usually these same people demand that they were under the influence, and didn't know better 'at the time'.And at the same time requesting that the courts or society should show consideration and show due lenience.
How many times do you see 'a celebrity' paying out possibly £2000 a night for attending a rehab programme, then see that same person 'on the waggon' again, after a short period of time. In the case of the celebrity, they or someone they know can usually afford such treatment, if that is what you want to call it. The mugger or thief and their legal team usually expect the public purse to come to the rescue, as a salvation excuse. But why should this be so?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.